Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 1041771" data-attributes="member: 2189">Let&#039;s say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins.&nbsp; We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov&#039;t would grow at some level.&nbsp; The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov&#039;t growth at bay, we have to elect Romney.Now, let&#039;s also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well.&nbsp; We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov&#039;t are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov&#039;t.But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov&#039;t has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him.&nbsp; Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov&#039;t, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov&#039;t when having to face so many crisis problems?&nbsp; What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov&#039;t which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn&#039;t be re-elected?Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought?Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind.&nbsp; But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be?&nbsp; Do you really think a true, principled limited gov&#039;t &quot;conservative&quot; could get elected governor in Massachusetts?&nbsp; Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants.&nbsp; It&#039;s exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008&#039;.&nbsp;&nbsp; You are falling for liars and false choices!And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/17/a-socialist-joins-the-presidential-debates/" target="_blank">why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate</a> answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 1041771, member: 2189"] Let's say the election is now a done deal and Romney wins. We know or have a good idea that under Obama that gov't would grow at some level. The assumption is therefore that in order to keep such gov't growth at bay, we have to elect Romney. Now, let's also say that on election day, the republicans maintain the Congress and take the lead in the Senate as well. We now have a scenario where the WH and the entire legislative branch of gov't are all controlled by a party whose continuing mantra has been smaller gov't. But there is no point in the last century, even in good times, where gov't has not grown and regardless of everything else, Romney will for sure have a huge job ahead of him. Now if republicans in the past even in good times have grown gov't, on what basis of fact can you believe they will not grow gov't when having to face so many crisis problems? What do you do if Romney does indeed grow gov't which you claim Obama will do and thus why Obama shouldn't be re-elected? Is there no thought of a plan of action beyond or is this just all an emotional reaction in the moment with no real basis of any thought? Obama Suks, we agree on that point and that was never in dispute at least in my mind. But I see no reason based on historical evidence that Romney will be of any real difference and other than some emotional orgasism on election night when they declare Romney the winner, what real difference will there really be? Do you really think a true, principled limited gov't "conservative" could get elected governor in Massachusetts? Or would that just be another power wanna-be who will tell the people exactly what they want to hear just so he gets what he wants. It's exactly no different than what Obama did in 2008'. You are falling for liars and false choices! And besides, if Obama is really a socialist in the framework some here claim, then [URL="http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/17/a-socialist-joins-the-presidential-debates/"][COLOR=#ff0000]why did the real socialist in the 1st Presidential Debate[/COLOR][/URL] answer the same question so radically different? (note: you may have to scroll past the funding appeal to see the debate transcript) [/QUOTE]

Verification